Who's going to qualify for the Democratic debates?

[GM Team Member and Deputy PPT WB]

At this point, everyone on the wikipedia page except for Messam probably

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

The DNC needs to reevaluate this criteria. Candidates like Yang (no matter now nice his platform is) and Williamson have no place on that debate stage. And Gabbard is barely better than them, but at least she’s held some office.

[Tender Branson]

The DNC needs to reevaluate this criteria. Candidates like Yang (no matter now nice his platform is) and Williamson have no place on that debate stage. And Gabbard is barely better than them, but at least she’s held some office.

Don’t be such a snob.

Why should holding a previous office be any criteria ?

Anyone meeting the polling and fundraising criteria should be included, no problem.

[PSOL]

The DNC needs to reevaluate this criteria. Candidates like Yang (no matter now nice his platform is) and Williamson have no place on that debate stage. And Gabbard is barely better than them, but at least she’s held some office.

Don’t be such a snob.

Why should holding a previous office be any criteria ?

Anyone meeting the polling and fundraising criteria should be included, no problem.

It may be better to see weed out the best candidate from a crowded field. If they can survive something chaotic as dealing with a multitude of primary challengers, they have enough savvyness to beat their challenger in the Presidential election.

[Del Tachi]

The DNC needs to reevaluate this criteria. Candidates like Yang (no matter now nice his platform is) and Williamson have no place on that debate stage. And Gabbard is barely better than them, but at least she’s held some office.

Don’t be such a snob.

Why should holding a previous office be any criteria ?

Anyone meeting the polling and fundraising criteria should be included, no problem.

It may be better to see weed out the best candidate from a crowded field. If they can survive something chaotic as dealing with a multitude of primary challengers, they have enough savvyness to beat their challenger in the Presidential election.

Or it'll just reward the loudest, most controversial candidates on-stage (probably Sanders, Gabbard, or Yang) at the expense of the more electable, milquetoast guys (Harris, Beto, Booker, etc.)

Given how important beating Trump should be in 2020, the DNC would be completely justified in turning the debates into an insider's game.

[eric82oslo]

The DNC needs to reevaluate this criteria. Candidates like Yang (no matter now nice his platform is) and Williamson have no place on that debate stage. And Gabbard is barely better than them, but at least she’s held some office.

Don’t be such a snob.

Why should holding a previous office be any criteria ?

Anyone meeting the polling and fundraising criteria should be included, no problem.

It may be better to see weed out the best candidate from a crowded field. If they can survive something chaotic as dealing with a multitude of primary challengers, they have enough savvyness to beat their challenger in the Presidential election.

Or it'll just reward the loudest, most controversial candidates on-stage (probably Sanders, Gabbard, or Yang) at the expense of the more electable, milquetoast guys (Harris, Beto, Booker, etc.)

If there's one thing Yang is not, it's loud.

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

The DNC needs to reevaluate this criteria. Candidates like Yang (no matter now nice his platform is) and Williamson have no place on that debate stage. And Gabbard is barely better than them, but at least she’s held some office.

Don’t be such a snob.

Why should holding a previous office be any criteria ?

Anyone meeting the polling and fundraising criteria should be included, no problem.

It may be better to see weed out the best candidate from a crowded field. If they can survive something chaotic as dealing with a multitude of primary challengers, they have enough savvyness to beat their challenger in the Presidential election.

Because we’re not the Republicans. Our entire message is that Trump is and was unqualified to be President. So why would we elevate candidates that have just as little experience or qualifications as him?

[wbrocks67]

Yeah, this is becoming a mess. 65,000 was clearly too low.

[Harlow]

The DNC needs to reevaluate this criteria. Candidates like Yang (no matter now nice his platform is) and Williamson have no place on that debate stage. And Gabbard is barely better than them, but at least she’s held some office.

Don’t be such a snob.

Why should holding a previous office be any criteria ?

Anyone meeting the polling and fundraising criteria should be included, no problem.

It may be better to see weed out the best candidate from a crowded field. If they can survive something chaotic as dealing with a multitude of primary challengers, they have enough savvyness to beat their challenger in the Presidential election.

Because we’re not the Republicans. Our entire message is that Trump is and was unqualified to be President. So why would we elevate candidates that have just as little experience or qualifications as him?

So you're saying the only reason Democrats think Trump is unqualified to be President is because he never held public office before?

[AltWorlder]

Yeah, this is becoming a mess. 65,000 was clearly too low.

Yang is like the only outsider candidate to have gotten in thanks to the fundraising requirement. And given the pace of his online campaign, he would probably clear double that by the time of the debates.

The gatekeeping going on in this thread is frustrating.

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

The DNC needs to reevaluate this criteria. Candidates like Yang (no matter now nice his platform is) and Williamson have no place on that debate stage. And Gabbard is barely better than them, but at least she’s held some office.

Don’t be such a snob.

Why should holding a previous office be any criteria ?

Anyone meeting the polling and fundraising criteria should be included, no problem.

It may be better to see weed out the best candidate from a crowded field. If they can survive something chaotic as dealing with a multitude of primary challengers, they have enough savvyness to beat their challenger in the Presidential election.

Because we’re not the Republicans. Our entire message is that Trump is and was unqualified to be President. So why would we elevate candidates that have just as little experience or qualifications as him?

So you're saying the only reason Democrats think Trump is unqualified to be President is because he never held public office before?

It’s not the only reason, but it’s obviously a big part of it. We have to draw the line somewhere.

[henster]

I am just not looking forward to Yang and Williamson derailing topics and the overall debate so they can push their crackpot ideas.

[eric82oslo]

I am just not looking forward to Yang and Williamson derailing topics and the overall debate so they can push their crackpot ideas.

Which exact idea of Yang do you consider crackpot? The UBI? The one championed by Martin Luther King Junior in 1967 and has been the law of the state of Alaska for 27 years running now, where it has more universal public approval in Alaska than even universal background checks on guns (meaning more than 90%)?


*I mean the Alaskan Oil Dividend, not the UBI or Freedom Dividend, but those two concepts are extremely closely aligned, cause they're basically the same. The only difference  is the amount. The Alaskan Oil Dividend is about 2000 USD per adult a year, while Yang's Freedom Dividend would be 12,000 USD per adult a year. So between 6 and 15 times the amount given annually in Alaska. In Alaska they regard it as an extra help in the run up to Christmas, cause I believe they only get the amount once a year. With Yang's plan, Christmas would basically happen for everyone, all adults, twelve times a year. This should be the greatest gift given to children ever, cause noone sees the effects of more money more clearly than the children.

[YE]

I am going to go out of the limb and suggest that the less of a hierarchical structure there is to qualify for the debates, the better. Running for president is difficult enough as is. Are some lesser known candidates have some unorthodox ideas? Sure but let the voters decide for themselves on whether to tune in or not. Also if one thinks that pointing out that Trump isn’t qualified is an effective message rather than economic populism, 2016 proved otherwise.

[eric82oslo]

When I asked if Henster was on drugs, it was obviously because he stated that Yang's ideas were crackpots, yet noone seems to have a sense of humour around here.

[PSOL]

The DNC needs to reevaluate this criteria. Candidates like Yang (no matter now nice his platform is) and Williamson have no place on that debate stage. And Gabbard is barely better than them, but at least she’s held some office.

Don’t be such a snob.

Why should holding a previous office be any criteria ?

Anyone meeting the polling and fundraising criteria should be included, no problem.

It may be better to see weed out the best candidate from a crowded field. If they can survive something chaotic as dealing with a multitude of primary challengers, they have enough savvyness to beat their challenger in the Presidential election.

Or it'll just reward the loudest, most controversial candidates on-stage (probably Sanders, Gabbard, or Yang) at the expense of the more electable, milquetoast guys (Harris, Beto, Booker, etc.)

Given how important beating Trump should be in 2020, the DNC would be completely justified in turning the debates into an insider's game.

Any candidate the Dems select has to be able to beat the loudest disruptor the country has seen, and that’s the opponent. Their electability rests on that, not some vague checklists.

[PaperKooper]

https://twitter.com/MikeGravel/status/1114222916957286402

Gravel hits roughly 5,000.

Meanwhile Gabbard is north of 61,000.

https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1113611555747315712

Castro hadn't qualified as of March 31st.

https://twitter.com/JulianCastro/status/1112539490290155520

[Mr. Morden]

Castro hadn't qualified as of March 31st.

https://twitter.com/JulianCastro/status/1112539490290155520

He has qualified on the basis of polling.  His campaign is being dishonest here by saying that he needs the donation in order to make it into the debates.  But they're not alone in lying about this.  I just saw a Gillibrand ad on FB saying the same thing.  And I think there have been others.

[PaperKooper]

He has qualified on the basis of polling.  His campaign is being dishonest here by saying that he needs the donation in order to make it into the debates.  But they're not alone in lying about this.  I just saw a Gillibrand ad on FB saying the same thing.  And I think there have been others.

Ah thanks for the correction.  I've seen the same Gilibrand facebook ads haha.

[7,052,770]

He has qualified on the basis of polling.  His campaign is being dishonest here by saying that he needs the donation in order to make it into the debates.  But they're not alone in lying about this.  I just saw a Gillibrand ad on FB saying the same thing.  And I think there have been others.

Theoretically, if more than 20 candidates qualify, preference goes to the candidates who qualify both ways rather than just 1, so it would be better for him to get over 65,000 than not.

[Mr. Morden]

He has qualified on the basis of polling.  His campaign is being dishonest here by saying that he needs the donation in order to make it into the debates.  But they're not alone in lying about this.  I just saw a Gillibrand ad on FB saying the same thing.  And I think there have been others.

Theoretically, if more than 20 candidates qualify, preference goes to the candidates who qualify both ways rather than just 1, so it would be better for him to get over 65,000 than not.

I highly doubt there'll be more than 20 candidates for the first debate, since the potential candidates who haven't jumped in yet are running out of time.  I suppose you might get 20+ qualifying candidates for the July debate though.

[Mr. Morden]

To expand on the previous post...

Among the group of candidates or potential candidates who have still not managed to get 1% in a single qualifying poll, who do we think is most likely to qualify for the first debate (either by polling or fundraising)?

Among candidates already in the race or with an exploratory committee, that would be Gravel, Messam, Ryan, and Williamson.  And then you've got potential candidates like Swalwell (will apparently formally join the race in a few days), Moulton, McAuliffe, and Abrams (seems unlikely to enter the race in time for the first debate).

It sounds like Williamson has a decent chance of making it in on the basis of fundraising, but of course she's been in the race since November, so she's had a lot more time to get there.  I think Abrams could certainly get in on either fundraising or polling if she actually entered the race in time, but it sounds like she probably won't.  And McAuliffe seems like he would have a chance, since he has a long history in the campaign fundraising world.

The others mentioned above I'm really skeptical of.  If Gabbard still hasn't made it to 65,000 after nearly three months, nor Delaney after something like two years, then why should we think that Tim Ryan or Eric Swalwell will be able to get there in the next two months?  They might qualify for the July debate, but the June debate seems like it might be a reach for them.  OTOH, if the pace of polling were to pick up dramatically over the next couple of months, then they'd have a real chance, since even if you have a tiny level of support, if you take enough polls, you'll end up hitting 1% in *some* of them.

[Beet]

So apparently 42,000 people have donated to Marianne Williamson. A small football stadium's capacity of people have donated to Marianne Williamson. Let that sink in for a moment.

[Tender Branson]

So apparently 42,000 people have donated to Marianne Williamson. A small football stadium's capacity of people have donated to Marianne Williamson. Let that sink in for a moment.

Not to mention that she will be at a CNN town hall next week, which could give her the additional 20.000 donors to qualify.

[AltWorlder]

So apparently 42,000 people have donated to Marianne Williamson. A small football stadium's capacity of people have donated to Marianne Williamson. Let that sink in for a moment.

It only costs a dollar to do so and she’s well known from being connected to Oprah. Her social media following dwarfs many “legitimate” candidates. That isn’t hard to get.